[B]The debate still rages wbout the games as art movement, and a lightning rod in the debate piped up again last week.[/B]

Roger Ebert was in gaming news again when [URL=http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html]he revisited[/URL] his "Games can bever be art" rant of a few years ago, using a TED presentation by developer Kellee Santiago (seen in the YouTube video above) as the impetus. But in combing through his updated editorial, I came upon an interesting point:

[INDENT]Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care.

Do they require validation? In defending their gaming against parents, spouses, children, partners, co-workers or other critics, do they want to be able to look up from the screen and explain, "I'm studying a great form of art?" Then let them say it, if it makes them happy.[/INDENT] A valid question. Personally, I think games can be art because of the way great games can evoke emotion as we play. But what is it about human nature that makes us think that others must agree with us? So Ebert doesn't agree that games are art. So what? Is it a gamers insecurity that makes people bash him for his point of view?

Love him or hate him, his question is definitely one worth considering.

[url=http://www.gameculture.com/2010/04/26/are-games-art-debate-anew]More...[/url]